跟你們很多人一樣，我對耶和華上帝的相信，因為祂醫治我的皮膚病。記得那時我對神人以利沙不親自跟我見面，反而要求我去約旦河沐浴七次大發脾氣。我曾想過當我回國後，我就會要求我主人亞蘭王派兵攻打以色列國，因為我受不了這次侮辱。但不知從那裡來的勇氣，我竟然最後還是聽從神人以利沙的吩咐。今日，我想與你們分享的，不是耶和華上帝如何使我痊癒，而是祂如何接納我。
我很感謝我的王，因為為了我的皮膚病，他很努力尋求方法使我痊癒。然而，我痊癒的經歷使我開始對我的王所相信的神有點保留，不但因為耶和華上帝比亞蘭王所拜的風雷之神更有能力，更因為耶和華上帝也拯救我這個非以色列人。雖然我作為一個與以色列敵人的亞蘭人，但耶和華上帝沒有看我是敵人，反而拯救我。這是風雷之神不會做的事。不但如此，風雷之神會要求我們供獻，但耶和華上帝卻沒有。這一切使我相信耶和華上帝是世人的上帝。然而，我很難將我的體驗與我的王分享。縱使他會為我的痊癒興奮，也會對耶和華上帝好奇，但他不會接受耶和華上帝也是他的上帝，因為當下以色列的積弱不會使我王相信耶和華上帝比風雷之神優勝。更重要，若對耶和華上帝的相信，這暗示我們亞蘭人就要臣服於以色列。所以，勸服我王相信耶和華上帝是不可能。
因此，作為亞蘭的元帥，我有很大的掙扎。一方面，我要繼續參與我王所相信的風雷之神之的叩拜。若我不這樣做時，我就會被視為對我王的背叛。如起初所說，我很感謝我王對我的關懷。另一方面，我知道我向風雷之神的跪拜是我不忠自己的經歷和對耶和華上帝的不尊重。相信耶和華上帝是否就不能當亞蘭的元帥？又當亞蘭的元帥是否就不可能相信耶和華上帝？我希望你們明白，我的掙扎不是個人名利與相信耶和華上帝之爭。相反，我相信我可以當亞蘭的元帥，也以耶和華上帝為我的上帝，因為我可以當元帥是耶和華上帝的恩典。因此，我不認為我要在元帥與相信耶和華上帝之間選擇其一。這兩者不是對立。所以，我不會認為不當亞蘭的元帥就是尊重耶和華上帝，反而這是對耶和華上帝的恩典漠視。意即，若當元帥是耶和華上帝的恩典，但為何認識耶和華上帝的恩典後，我就不要當元帥。這是不合理的。可惜的是，這不是我王，甚至相信耶和華上帝的以色列人之看法。我王只會認為我們的勝利是因風雷之神的幫助，而不是耶和華上帝。至於以色列人，他們會認為相信耶和華上帝就不應當亞蘭的元帥。究竟我對耶和華上帝的相信是對還是他們所相信的是對？
我的矛盾是：若不叩拜的話，我就不可能繼續當亞蘭元帥。在這種處境下，耶和華上帝可以饒恕我向風雷之神的叩拜嗎？縱使我可以自圓其說，我對風雷之神的叩拜只是外表，沒有內心。甚至我也可以自辯，我對風雷之神的叩拜不是對他，而是對在風雷之神之上的耶和華上帝。然而，在眾人面前，我確實向風雷之神叩拜。我尋求耶和華上帝的饒恕。在可能未來很長的日子，我也可能改變不了我認為不是矛盾的矛盾。
令人想不到的，竟然神人以利沙跟我說，「你可以平平安安的回去。｣雖然他沒有向我直接說，耶和華上帝饒恕我，但平平安安對我的意義比饒恕更深遠。第一，平平安安向我說出耶和華上帝的恩典沒有因我叩拜風雷之神而離開我，耶和華上帝仍會是我的上帝。第二，我是帶著不平安的心來到以色列地，但不要因這叩拜之事失去我從耶和華上帝那裡來的平安。只有存在平安的心，我才不會被某事或某人控制。
我曾聽說過以色列的上帝是忌邪的上帝，所以，耶和華上帝對其子民有很高的信仰和道德要求。但我的經歷卻讓我體會耶和華上帝的恩典和體諒比祂的忌邪更廣，更深。祂不但拯救一個不是以色列人的我，更沒有要求我一定要符合信仰某種要求。面對這位寬容、體諒和賜予平安的上帝，我會更尊重祂。
今日，我們可能因著環境、自己的身體和工作，甚至對信仰的理解而充滿緊張和無奈，但耶和華上帝是一位賜予平安的上帝。我深信祂必保守你，賜你平安，為你開一條路。
2011年11月12日 星期六
2011年11月6日 星期日
The foolish and the wise (Mt 25;1-13)
The core focus of this parable is about the last judgment that a schism will run through the believers that will separate the elect from those who are called. Since the bridegroom symbolizes the return of Jesus, the virgins are Christians and the wedding feast symbolizes the kingdom of God in Christian tradition, Christians have to prepare themselves for the return of Jesus by having oil which represents good works instead of making prophesy when Jesus returns. Why can’t oil be represented by evangelism or others? This is because the following story of the division of the sheep into the left and right (Matt 25:31-46) is about good works, not about the doctrine and evangelism. The story is not about what the Chinese is used to say, 居安思危 or preparation for the worst, but rather that we should not ignore our good works. It is not the church membership that matters, but the deed.
Today I would like to draw your attention to the last few words of the parable. The bridegroom said to the five foolish young women, ‘I say to you, I do not know you.’ The door is not open for them, and they would not be allowed to join the wedding feast. Since this is the final, there is no second chance. Personally, I feel uneasy to the cruelty of the bridegroom who represents Jesus Christ. Other than Jesus, it is ok. For instance, one may be denied on board if one is late, and there is no excuse. However, since Jesus is lovingkindness, forgiveness and mercy shown in his life, he is supposed to be less rigid and gracious. Besides, we are not sure whether the foolishness of these five young women is a result of their naïve, irresponsibility or wickedness. Should they be treated individually? Or does my uneasiness abuse the graciousness of Jesus? I accept a basic fact that no matter whether one is naïve or wickedness, one has to bear one’s responsibility, but I am not puzzled whether the final is the final. This reminds me on the issue of death penalty. One of the strong reasons to say no to it, because we are not in a position to say the final is the final. Due to this, different people have attempted to imagine the possible different endings of this parable. Nikos Kazantzakis, author of the Last Temptation of Christ, writes
What would you have done, Nathanael?’ Jesus asked. ‘What would you have done if you had been the bridegroom?’
Nathanael was silent. One moment he thought to send them away. The door had definitely closed, and that was what the Law required. But in the next moment he pitied them and thought to let them in…
Finally, he answered in a low voice so that the old chief would not hear, ‘I would have opened the door.’
'Congratulation, friend Nathanael,’ Jesus said happily. ‘The bridegroom did exactly as you said: he called to his servants to open the door. This is a wedding, he cried, let everyone eat, drink and be merry. Open the door for the foolish young women and wash and refresh their feet, for they have run much. (p.217)
How do you think about this ending? Is this too humanistic? I think this question reflects who we are more than the correct interpretation of the passage.
If we are one of the foolish young woman, the purpose of Jesus’ saying is to remind us to be mindful and faithful. If we complain the cruelity of the bridegroom without repentance, our complaint is definitely an excuse. Therefore, it is acceptable that Jesus stops at what the account of Matthew is, for this can generate a stimulus to the audiences. I would probably use similar ending to encourage my children to be responsible, for if they know that they would be anyway to be admitted to the University, they would be just what they are right now, and have missed the chance to grow.
However, even though if the audiences are not the foolish, but the wise, they may be inclined to interepret Jesus’ parable in a doctrinal way. They might spend time to define what the good works are, and what should be counted. Unlike the Pharisees, they may do what they request other to do. They endeavor to press others to follow God's request and convert others. They may be faithful to the story, but they have turned to be the spokeperson of the bridegroom.
The third group of audiences is the wise who have entered into the wedding feast. They are happy that they are lucky to have enough oil along with them. They are also happy that they can participate in the wedding feast. However, there is an atmosphere of saddness around them, for they may be concerned about the friends who are not in. They would probably plea to the bridegroom to let them in.
Who are you in this parable, the foolish, the legalistic wise or the wise? Don't pretend to be wise as well as to be foolis. The foolish is the wise when they respond faithfully to God. And the wise can be the foolish when they share no God’s mercy for the whole world. Who are you in this parabl
Today I would like to draw your attention to the last few words of the parable. The bridegroom said to the five foolish young women, ‘I say to you, I do not know you.’ The door is not open for them, and they would not be allowed to join the wedding feast. Since this is the final, there is no second chance. Personally, I feel uneasy to the cruelty of the bridegroom who represents Jesus Christ. Other than Jesus, it is ok. For instance, one may be denied on board if one is late, and there is no excuse. However, since Jesus is lovingkindness, forgiveness and mercy shown in his life, he is supposed to be less rigid and gracious. Besides, we are not sure whether the foolishness of these five young women is a result of their naïve, irresponsibility or wickedness. Should they be treated individually? Or does my uneasiness abuse the graciousness of Jesus? I accept a basic fact that no matter whether one is naïve or wickedness, one has to bear one’s responsibility, but I am not puzzled whether the final is the final. This reminds me on the issue of death penalty. One of the strong reasons to say no to it, because we are not in a position to say the final is the final. Due to this, different people have attempted to imagine the possible different endings of this parable. Nikos Kazantzakis, author of the Last Temptation of Christ, writes
What would you have done, Nathanael?’ Jesus asked. ‘What would you have done if you had been the bridegroom?’
Nathanael was silent. One moment he thought to send them away. The door had definitely closed, and that was what the Law required. But in the next moment he pitied them and thought to let them in…
Finally, he answered in a low voice so that the old chief would not hear, ‘I would have opened the door.’
'Congratulation, friend Nathanael,’ Jesus said happily. ‘The bridegroom did exactly as you said: he called to his servants to open the door. This is a wedding, he cried, let everyone eat, drink and be merry. Open the door for the foolish young women and wash and refresh their feet, for they have run much. (p.217)
How do you think about this ending? Is this too humanistic? I think this question reflects who we are more than the correct interpretation of the passage.
If we are one of the foolish young woman, the purpose of Jesus’ saying is to remind us to be mindful and faithful. If we complain the cruelity of the bridegroom without repentance, our complaint is definitely an excuse. Therefore, it is acceptable that Jesus stops at what the account of Matthew is, for this can generate a stimulus to the audiences. I would probably use similar ending to encourage my children to be responsible, for if they know that they would be anyway to be admitted to the University, they would be just what they are right now, and have missed the chance to grow.
However, even though if the audiences are not the foolish, but the wise, they may be inclined to interepret Jesus’ parable in a doctrinal way. They might spend time to define what the good works are, and what should be counted. Unlike the Pharisees, they may do what they request other to do. They endeavor to press others to follow God's request and convert others. They may be faithful to the story, but they have turned to be the spokeperson of the bridegroom.
The third group of audiences is the wise who have entered into the wedding feast. They are happy that they are lucky to have enough oil along with them. They are also happy that they can participate in the wedding feast. However, there is an atmosphere of saddness around them, for they may be concerned about the friends who are not in. They would probably plea to the bridegroom to let them in.
Who are you in this parable, the foolish, the legalistic wise or the wise? Don't pretend to be wise as well as to be foolis. The foolish is the wise when they respond faithfully to God. And the wise can be the foolish when they share no God’s mercy for the whole world. Who are you in this parabl
2011年11月1日 星期二
公民教育
龔序
行政長官曾蔭權於2010至2011年《施政報告》特別提出推動國民教育是政府既定方針，並計劃於2013至2014年度學年在全港推行國民教育課程。國民教育的重要性，在於它能使年輕人意識到自己的公民權利與義務，並能學習參與社會事務。然而，當我們面對民主政治發展處處受到掣肘、人權意識相對薄弱，以及公民教育傾向道德化，這時，我們不能不懷疑政府推行的國民教育的目的，是為了製造順民還是培育學生的批判思維。
就著香港社會的特性，筆者對於國民教育和公民教育有兩個看法。第一，2004年《香港全球公民調查》報告指出，有69%的受訪者認為，香港有責任照顧鄰近不幸的國家；有84%受訪者認為，承擔更多國際責任，有助建立香港的國際地位；有52%受訪者願意為公平貿易付出更多稅款。相反，只有39%認為香港沒有能力承擔對外的責任。以上調查意味著香港人已逐步走出島嶼心態，願意承擔更多國際責任。願意承擔更多國際責任，不等於削弱對本地和國家的承擔，反而卡明斯（Lucy M. Cummings）和鄧特抗（James T. H. Tang）在其專文中提出，香港承擔更多國際社會責任將有助建立社會團結力量。那麼，當下政府倡議的國民教育（強調自然國情、歷史國情、人文國情和當代國情）正違反和窒礙香港人的成長，以沙民主義（chauvinism）替代全球公民責任。
第二，按《世界價值調查》，經濟已發展的國家和地區傾向後物質價值，即自由、自我表達和生活質素等。近年香港發生的社會事件（喜帖街、皇后碼頭、菜園村），皆充分把這種價值反映出來。若套用後殖民理論解釋，香港年青一代的自我身分逐漸建立，獨立於上一代所謂的生活在「借來的時間、借來的地方｣。他們視香港為他們的家。不僅如此，他們更要主動塑造自己的家園。那麼，一個非政治性的公民教育正與年青一代的經驗相違；同樣，一個欠缺批判性的國民教育更可說是幫倒忙。結果，年青人的經驗不但沒有被正確詮釋，反而被標籤為激進。由是造成了社會分化。
聯合國先後於1994年和1999年通過了「和平文化」（culture of peace）的建議和《海牙二十一世紀和平與正義綱領》（The Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice for the 21 Century），當中特別提出「全球和平教育運動」（Global Campaign for Peace Education）。和平教育理念有七方面，分別是人權（對他者尊嚴的肯定）、合作與團結（公民教育）、文化保育（對國家文化與歷史認識和欣賞）、自我與他者（人際關係）、國際主義（全球化）、環境保護（可持續發展）和靈性（生命力，宗教與和平）等。當我們思考公民教育、德育和國民教育時，筆者認為「和平教育」是值得香港教育工作者參考的。
梁恩榮博士和阮衛華博士的專書，正好回應了香港公民教育何去何從的問題。他們特別針對人權教育、民主教育和國民教育等課題作出仔細分析和論證，整合海外理論和本地經驗，並透過實踐與驗證，向讀者指出，實無需懼怕公民教育的政治性，反而要追問它促進甚麼樣的正義、鼓勵甚麼樣的正義實踐和培育甚麼樣的正義人格。不論讀者是否任教公民教育科，這專書都是絕對適切的，因為公民教教育已具體出現在所有課堂和校園生活中。
最後，我喜見香港基督徒學會與印象文字出版本書，與關心年青人成長的教育工作者並肩前行。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)